However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

around 12:30 on January 13, 2017, the Defendant cut off the two-storys D located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, the victim C, with one outside 300,000,000 won of the market price where the employee's surveillance is neglected.

On April 7, 2017, the Defendant, at the H convenience store operated by the victim G located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu at around 12:00 on April 7, 2017, the Defendant: (a) placed in a bank with articles equivalent to KRW 5,00,00 in the market price of KRW 3,200, and one 1,5,300 in the market price, and one 15,300,000 in the total of 3,90,000 won in the market price, which is owned by the victim G.

Summary of Evidence

[2017 Highest 154]

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to C [2017 senior order 441];

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (in cases of attaching field photographs, etc.);

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. In light of various circumstances, such as the background leading up to each of the instant crimes, the means and methods of committing a crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after committing the instant crime, etc., it is deemed that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, etc., and thus, the allegation of mental disorder cannot be accepted.

This case has been repeatedly punished five times due to the same crime, which is disadvantageous to the reason for sentencing.